TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT - ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2021-01 - 275 KERWOOD ST

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

TO: Committee
DATE: March 3, 2021
FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Community Planner
MEETING DATE: March 9, 2021
FILE NO.: 3060-20-2021-01

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2021-01
SHORELINE AND NATURAL WATERCOURSE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA
275 KERWOOD ST

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report dated March 3, 2021 from the Community Planner titled "Environmental Development Permit No. 2021/01 - Shoreline and Natural Watercourse Development Permit Area - 275 Kerwood Street" be received for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present a new application for an Environmental Development Permit with variances to permit the construction of stairs, landscaping, retaining walls, a (smaller) boathouse and a ramp and float at 275 Kerwood St.

BACKGROUND

This report follows the rejection of several earlier applications for similar structures in 2020. Earlier applications separated the ramp and float into a different application, but this has been combined into one application to cover all proposed improvements.

The property is 866m² and zoned R-1: Detached Residential (Large Lot) and is adjacent to Esquimalt Harbour. There was a boathouse on the property which staff believes was demolished and reconstructed. As a result, any non-conforming status this structure may have enjoyed has been lost.

The applicant is currently constructing a dwelling on the property.

PROJECT INFORMATION

The applicant has made application for retaining walls, stairs, boathouse, landscaping, ramp and float on the property. The major change is that the boathouse is now included with the application, and the proposal includes a reduction in its size (width is now 4.8m and depth is 5.3m) which conforms to the Zoning Bylaw regulations regarding accessory building floor area and dimensions.

The applicant has included the following in support of their application:

1. Letter to Mayor and Council – February 4, 2021
2. BC Land Surveyor’s Site Plan – Explorer Land Surveying Inc – May 14, 2019
3. Geotechnical Survey – Ryzuk Geotechnical – October 1, 2019
4. Site Plans and Elevations – KB Design – May 29, 2020
5. 3D Rendering of the uplands improvements – applicant - undated
6. Archaeological Recommendations – Millennia Research Limited – July 20, 2020
7. Transport Canada exemption for the dock installation –
8. DFO screening – March 29, 2019
9. Environmental Screening Report – Applicant and CFB Esquimalt – March 2020
10. Marine Environmental Assessment – Corvidae Environmental Consulting – November 2019

Requested Variances

The retaining walls were previously proposed at 2.5m but have since been lowered to a maximum of 1.52m. The retaining walls still require a variance to permit them within the 15m setback from the natural boundary to the sea, and for height.

• Variance to the prohibition on retaining wall constructed within the setback from the natural boundary to the sea.
• Variance to the setback for the boathouse, ramp and float structures from 15m to 0m.
• Variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 1.52m.

Dock Component and Private Dock Development Guidelines

In the past the Town had issued a letter of compliance for an existing regularized ramp and float at this property. There is currently no such structure on the property, and there has not been for many years. The applicant’s letter states that the dock was destroyed in a storm; staff’s experience, and that of DND’s, has been that the previous owner seasonally installed the dock and had not done so in many years despite it being regularized by DND and the Town.

The application should meet the Town’s Private Dock Development Guidelines or provide rationale on why it does not.

2.0 GUIDELINES

Private docks and associated structures should:

1. consist of only one dock per property. Sharing a dock with adjoining waterfront properties is permitted.
2. be intended for private moorage purposes.
3. be oriented in a logical and unobtrusive manner which takes into account shoreline navigation, prevailing wind, tidal action, water depth and shoreline topography.
4. remain sensitive to views and impacts on neighbours and public viewpoints such as parks and roadways.
5. not obstruct or impede pedestrian access along the foreshore unless reasonable alternative means of passage are made available (e.g. stairs over a dock or ramp).
6. not unduly interfere with the navigation of the foreshore or of deep-water channels, particularly in coves and other narrow water bodies.
7. be constructed and maintained to current best practices for marine structures.
8. be lit with appropriate, directional lighting where lighting is required, which does not impact the character of the neighbourhood or unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties or of the foreshore.
9. have ramps up to 1.6m in width and floats up to 12m in length that together extend not more than 25m from the natural boundary, only varying with careful consideration of the scale and shoreline conditions of the property they serve.
10. be allowed small storage structures/benches upon a ramp/float for the storage of safety gear, fenders etc. up to 1.2m high.

The only potential issue for Council is that the dock does extend in a straight line from the natural boundary more than 25m to approximately 27-28m. Staff does not see this as being a reason to deny the application, considering the dock must reach deep water.

Boathouse

While the applicant retains their opinion that the boathouse is lawfully non-conforming, it is now being included in the application. The proposal removes the ‘wings’ and leaves a smaller, more square structure measuring 4.8m wide and 5.3m deep. This is not yet reflected in all supplemental material (the applicant has recycled some files) but will be reflected in the final Development Permit in all cases.

Environment

The Environmental Review by FKW has the following conclusions:

In summary, the proposed work will not disturb any rare or endangered species or ecosystems. Provided the measures and BMPs described in this review are followed, the proposed construction activities are not expected to have significant negative impacts to the current ecosystems of the 15m DPA setback from Esquimalt Harbour. If implemented, the suggested restoration activities would provide improvement over the current conditions for this coastal bedrock bluff, in particular for songbirds.

Geotechnical

The Ryzuk Geotechnical Memo states that they consider the proposed construction to be feasible given their list of conditions.

DISCUSSION

There are three issues for Council to consider:

• The impact of the proposal on the environment.
• The impact of the variance and the total impact of the improvements on the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.

Impact on Environment

The foreshore structures prior to the non-permitted work were in very poor shape. It was unsafe to walk on and in them. The property has also needed a retaining wall to prevent further slumping of the slope behind the boathouse. Staff does not believe that the application will have a significant negative impact on the natural environment, and the retaining wall to prevent the slumping of the uplands is likely to be of benefit.